America is in the heart

FIFTEEN years after the US military bases in the Philippines closed shop, the political reality Manolo described yesterday remains disconcertingly accurate:

The test of the mettle of a Filipino leader has always been how he negotiates with Uncle Sam, and the proof of the ability of a Filipino administration is whether it gets a friendly hearing or not from Washington.

By and large, this is still true today despite the growth in closer Asean relations, despite President Macapagal-Arroyo’s symbolic first visit to Malaysia upon assuming the presidency, despite the many overtures to China. I do not think, though, that any Philippine politician working today (or, ah, not working) actually conceives of Philippine-American relations as a special relationship. What we have, or so it seems to me, is the detritus of a colonial relationship or, to change metaphors, the amputee’s sense that the leg long since sawn off is still there, below the knee.

(Besides, the term “special relationship” has no meaning to American politicians except perhaps as an infrequently used reminder of the state of US-UK relations.)

It is only right to acknowledge that official American interest in the Philippines is more serious and sustained these days, precisely because certain parts of Mindanao form part of the second front in the Bush administration’s war on terror. It is also only right to note that the ongoing inquiry of a key subcommittee of the US Senate committee on foreign relations into extrajudicial killings in the Philippines wouldn’t have been possible if the Democrats had not regained control of the Senate.

But old habits are truly hard to break. Now Filipino politicians of all stripes are scrambling to turn the hearings in Washington, DC to their own advantage. (Despite the Arroyo administration’s protestations, about alleged foreign intervention, one gets the sense that, if the shoe were on the other foot, we would hear Palace spokesmen defending, rather than attacking, the hearings.)

Or hearing, because as of this writing, Sen. Barbara Boxer’s subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs has held only the first one. I found the testimony of the following (already available on the US Senate’s website) most interesting: Eric John, who oversees policy for East Asia and the Pacific in the State Department; Jonathan Farrar, also of State, who spoke on the human rights situation in the Philippines; and G. Eugene Martin of the US Institute of Peace (a federally funded but nonpartisan agency).

Martin’s, in particular, is especially noteworthy, because it tries to present the whole picture (I have a quibble here and there, but in the main it seems to me on the money) without being limited by the language of diplomacy.

I believe the present rash of violence and killings is the result of political
nstability and weakness. President Arroyo has expressed her determination to
address and resolve the killings. She established the Independent Commission
to Address Media and Activist Killings, headed by former Supreme Court
Associate Justice Jose Melo. She also welcomed the investigation of Professor
Philip Alston, the Special Rapporteur of the UN Human Rights Council.
However, I question her capability to take the necessary steps to end the killings.
She has been politically weak since her controversial election in 2004, depending
upon support from military and provincial leaders to counter impeachment
measures by her opponents in Congress. She has promoted military officers who
support her and placed retired military and police officers in high-level civilian
offices. Her challenge to the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) to eliminate
the decades old communist New Peoples Army (NPA) insurgency within two
years has given the AFP a green light to take any action it wishes against the
NPA and their allies. Faced with a persistent low-level NPA insurgency, the
military resorts to stretching counterinsurgency strategies to branding leftist
organizations as enemies of the state that can be intimidated or eliminated by
any means.

The communist insurgency is a serious threat to the Philippine
government and democracy. The world’s last remaining Maoist insurgency, the
NDF, uses violence and abuses democratic privileges to advance its power. As a
legal political movement, NDF leaders are elected to Congress where they
continue to oppose the administration and seek to block or destabilize
government policies. During election campaigns, the NDF uses kidnappings,
“revolutionary” taxes, threats and violence to support its candidates and harass
opponents. The Party’s political goals are to weaken the government, gain
power through coalitions and eventually replace the democratic system with an
ideological communist dictatorship.

I’ve seen letters circulating on the Internet, purporting to report what transpired in the hearing and concluding that, “on the floor,” there was a consensus that the killings were the responsibility of “the butcher in Malacanang.” Not having been at the actual hearing, I cannot say with certainty that the letter-writer was wrong. But my news sense tells me this “conclusion” was a prejudgment and needs to be verified. News reports about the hearing certainly lead me to think the letter writer was an advocate, not an analyst.

And yet: I think we all do understand that, precisely because nothing much seems to be happening in the Philippines on the issue of extrajudicial killings, hearings like Boxer’s gives those of us who want the killings stopped some reason to hope.

Buffeted by natural and unnatural calamities, the Philippines has carded the worst economic performance among the … Asean grouping last year. What is more tragic, in the midst of all these miseries, Filipinos are still killing each other in ever increasing numbers. This bloodletting must stop. This madness must cease.

That quote is 24 years old (that is, it was spoken almost an entire generation ago). It was written, and said, by opposition Sen. Benigno Aquino Jr. His audience: The subcommittee on Asian and Pacific Affairs of the US House of Representatives. Those of us who read the entire testimony some two months later (that is, after Ninoy was assassinated) sensed hope stirring.

Share This